> >I have looked at occurences of KURIOS and KURIE in Revelation
> >and my preliminary feeling is that KURIE is used each time it
> >is clear that direct address is being used, and KURIOS is used
> >in all other occurrences, EXCEPT for Re 4:11. Does this mean
> >that the internal evidence favors KURIE ?
> > KURIE Re 7:14;11:17;15:3,416:7;22:20
> > KURIOS Re 1:8;4:8,11;11:8;17:14;18:8;19:6,16;21:22;22:5,6;
> I very much sympathize with this approach. As a rule, discussions of
> variant readings should not be done in isolation. Usually a lot of valuable
> TC information shows up when working on similar morphological or
> syntactical phenomena of the same text or author, even to the end of
> complicating the whole issue. Larry, you probably realized that in Re 11:17
> p47 and Aleph (!) give the variant reading (ho) KYRIOS instead of KYRIE.
> What do you make of that?
> Ulrich Schmid
I've just started looking at this, and I have not looked at all
the variations for each occurence. That sounds like a good idea.
I see the similarity between 4:11 and 11:17. The thing that bothers
me about all these variations (for KS,KE) is that we know that the original
text did not have the nomina sacra -- not even one nomen sacrum (could not
So, since we know for a fact that we are not looking at the original
text, is it not possible that whatever was there before was not
changed consistently by different witnesses ?